Posted on 05/13/2015 4:51:15 AM PDT by SJackson
Wisconsin is poised to shift to a new and unproven model of self-sufficiency for the state's sprawling state parks system.
The changes could include more alliances with the private sector and naming rights at some park venues.
A key legislative committee on Thursday called for the Department of Natural Resources to rely on traditional sources of cash, such as state park stickers, trail passes and fees paid for campsites, for future funding.
It also called for the DNR to conduct a study to explore new revenue streams — but no longer rely on tax dollars.
Nationally, state parks haven't been able to fund their entire operations with money collected from campers, hikers and other users. Instead, other state park systems have had to tap tax dollars or other sources of public funds, according to data from the National Association of State Parks Directors.
In Wisconsin, 28% of parks operations are currently funded from the state's general fund, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau. The system is getting $16.7 million in annual funding of all types.
"Moving to more of a user-based system is very appropriate," said Sen. Tom Tiffany (R-Hazelhurst), a member of the Joint Finance Committee that recommended the changes.
"The people who use the service should pay for the service."
Democrat opposition
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
I think parks are a legitimate expenditure for government. In many cases concessions might pay more of the expenses, and could probably be expanded. Of course for Michelle, minorities should be free.
Wisconsin should setup a “Parks Lottery” which has specified cash payouts and designate the income from the lottery sales towards funding State Parks. In short order, there would be all the money they need to support the park system.
I do, as well. For some parks, self-sufficiency will be difficult. Within any state, there are parks that are heavily used - those near larger metro areas, those with special features like lakes, good hiking trails, waterfalls, nice campgrounds, and year round attractions, e.g.
Other parks, many in rural areas, which might be just pleasant retreats for a day visit when the weather is nice will find it difficult to survive.
I have absolutely no problem with cutting back the funding of the Wisconsin DNR. State park fees are already excessive.
We should give our park land to the Homeless. They can set up encampments there and finally have a place to call, ‘home!’
*SMIRK*
(The local leftover, drugged out and mentally ill Hippies in Madistan already do this. They’ve trashed so much public space on the backs of the Taxpayers, it’s ridiculous!)
New model for funding state parks? (How about selling some of the vast holdings of the state, rather than investing in more?)
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
South Carolina has an excellent park system in combination with a great online info and reservation system. Easy to research park amenities/local area, and then reserve specific camping spots (including cabins). Prices are not unreasonable either.
I'm not sure how "unproven" this method is. Vermont has funded their state parks with user fees as long as I can remember.
I don't think EACH park has to be self sufficient. They busier parks will subsidize the less busier parks.
You laugh but there is a new group of homeless coming. They are currently called boomers.
I spend quite a few nights camping in state parks. Many are full and reservations are required.
As I travel the interstates I see on the outskirts of most large cities RV dealers with thousands of rigs waiting to be sold to Boomers getting ready to retire and then hit the road. The really big rigs are extremely expensive so the boomers sell their houses and live in the RV.
Once that irrevocable transition is made, the problem becomes where to stay. It is real...... not imagined.
State Parks are going to need to grow to provide space for this coming horde.
Another model that could draw in substantial revenue and visitors is that adopted by Kentucky, West Virginia, and several other states. Wisconsin could establish state resort parks at appropriate state parks, with golf courses, tennis courts, pools, etc., as well as lodging, which can run the gamut from rustic cabins to luxury hotels with dining rooms, meeting facilities and other amenities.. Kentucky has seventeen of these, West Virginia ten, Indiana and Illinois have five or six. Arkansas and Tennessee also have a few, and I recall that Maryland and Iowa one each. In some states they’re built and staffed by the state, others by contract managers. I’ve given speeches and led seminars at many of these facilities, and whenever I’ve been at them I find that they’re very popular with local folks for family reunions, weddings, class reunions, etc.
AR also has lots of Corp of Engineer facilities.
AR draws a lot of outdoor tourists from DFW, OK City and Tulsa, Kansas Cities, St Louis and Chicago, Memphis, LA and MS.
They draw a lot of trout fishermen, duck hunters, and white water boaters.
Why doesn't the same apply to a stadium for the Milwaukee Bucks?
I’ve done presentations at the DeGray Lake State Park Lodge and the lodge at Mount Magazine; both beautiful facilities in beautiful Arkansas settings.
I've used state parks and Corp parks and Natl forest parks some but mainly I camped on land owned by Weyerhauser, who owned about as much land as Ouachita Natl Forest.
In 1992, the Cossatot was turned into a linear state park on land donated by Weyerhauser, from the Natl Forest down to the Corp lake, after which I was camping in a State Park.
Back in the old days you had to know your way around the logging roads and be willing to camp rustic. After it became a state park they started making improvements, putting up signs, putting in solar toilets and it got crowded. They ruined it. Finally, in 2000 Weyerhauser ended their open lands policy and started putting up gates. That ruined it even worse. I haven't been there since 2003
I don’t doubt you.
My Aunt & Uncle did that for a number of years. Then the glamor of ‘Life On The Road’ wore off and they bought a house, again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.